Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> Quoting dak:
> "This looks like a total mess."
> "Total waste of effort."
> "Aaand another one."

Ouch.  Fortunately in context this looks less dire ("Aaand another one."
for example just means "And here is another thing I found after looking
more carefully.").  Those sentences are part of a larger line-by-line
review and more or less the cream of the crop.

But yes, read in isolation and not sorting it into the somewhat jovial
overall tone, that's bad.  And one problem is that even if the recipient
happens to know how to take it, that's not a given for other readers
looking for examples of how reviews go.

> Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
> You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst,

If that were the only lines, yes.  There is lots of detailed stuff and
suggestions in between, interspersed with questions about the aim of the
patch because I suspect it can be done achieved a lot more simple (a
hunch that often holds when things are converted to polar coordinates
and back again).

> but  I'm
> used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
> It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch

The mess was likely the bunch of expressions involved and their flow.

> I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him

Waste of effort was a sequence of scaling up and scaling down again by
the same factor, but I overlooked that a different scale factor at a
different angle also came into play so that this was more complex than
it looked.

Again, "waste of effort" did not refer to the patch but rather about
what the computer was doing.  I, well, am better at empathising with
computers than humans when looking at programs.

> And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch
>
> Finally the patch came through.
>
> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is wrong.
> Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.

Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
potential for controversy.  But I'll agree that it sends an awful
message to bystanders.

I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
on first visitors.

Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
insight to my side of the fence.

-- 
David Kastrup